Add Comment

I almost quit viewing after 10 minutes, and wondered what is this guy about. Curious, I kept watching, trying to figure the angle, then it started to sound familiar. It had the ring of an anthropology class I once took (only female in a class of 98% Saudi males, but that is another story). What he was saying started to compute, and it was hard to dispute. It would have made more sense in the 60s, but all this dependency was supposed to be gone and females liberated by now. Didn't really happen. My dad always told me if I went into a field with guys, I would have to work twice as hard to get recognition. That was okay, I was willing. However, if you walk into your average high school today, the talk is not about female achievement. The girls dress to impress the guys, they offer the football players BJs, esp. after Clinton, they fight over boys. The idea of getting pregnant to trap some guy is still very much alive. It almost seems as if the girls have devolved. Then there are the moms I saw when our daughter was growing up. Nobody wanted to make waves if academics were lacking, just so long as Susie was popular. Have you seen the recent condescending ad about a girl buying a car, and how hard it is to choose, but one agency makes it so she does not need a "dude" with her? Excuse me, I bought my first car in 1966, arranged financing and picked it out, alone! Even as an old lady, I walked in with a filled out accessory sheet to order ny Camaro just as I wanted it when the 5th generation came out. All females should do it as second nature, not as someone's dependent. My husband expects as much of me. Over the years we have both worked, I stayed home to make sure our daughter leaned something, then went back to work to set and example for her high school years, since she was required to work part time also. I see women at WalMart, kids from numerous fathers, in line with their government assistance, and I see what the video was saying. They are married to government, and they are sleeping with anyone and everyone -, and they have no self-respect at all. The fellows have little desire to leave home, much less marry these gals, and more and more don't want to work at all. I am afraid, as quirky as it at first appeared, this video actually makes sense, sad sense, but sense. He presents it as women are the cause, but women must own their role in being that cause,before anything will improve, if it can, before the country collapses. Most of the women I know, really could not tell you the Federal Reserve is not a government agency, and one college educated one, reuses to e-mail me now , as her son, who works in a bank, told her it was government owned. I wish the video had gone farther and offered some solutions, in the same quirky fashion, of course.

Since I am a woman (who should want this for free) I will produce and elucidate a few flaws with his argument. Btw, I generally love his videos). Fails in the argument: 1. throughout History, women have been used as beasts of burden on the whole. The women give men sex and labor for protection and the occasional Big Hunt. 2. If women expected "free" things-then how come it was women who brought the dowry to a marriage-that is across all cultures I might add. 3. People are rational animals. Depending on how times change-people value different things. It is nonsense to suggest that *always* women want free things and support. It does not bear up historically and it ignores the rational behavior component. Now go bring me a elk

I'll take a crack at this. 1. As much as men have used women as beats of burden, men have by necessity done more. Logically if a man and a woman live together, and have a kid, the male will have to provide more labor since the women will not be able to work at her full potential. Added into that is that on average males have a body structure that is more suited to heavy labor. On average. I'd say the majority. 2. Isn't the dowry coming from the parents of the girl and not the girl herself, as a payment to the male for taking a burden of their hands. I know that sounds horrible and women were treated like property in the past which is a shame, but that's what the dowry was, the parents payment so they didn't have to feed their daughter anymore. The dowry would be bigger if the girl was less desirable right? 3. I don't think it is in contradiction to the rationality of humans. For one, humans are rational animals but they are still animals. That means trying to get the most reward for the least effort. So while humans have the capacity for rationality, this doesn't mean that all humans rationally think out everything. They take short cuts of they can and assume things are true instead of personally rationalizing it. Which is why we are where we are. And women don't necessarily want free things and support, it is a compliment to them to receive free things and support is a necessity to raising a child.

3. how is it a compliment when you receive something by the use of force. It's not given to *you* it's given to a group who meet an criteria. how is that special? 2. you make great points here. However, it goes against the idea that the male suitor gets the female by providing her stuff. The woman isn't getting anything in the deal. 1. actually a fallacy. Men lounge. Hunter/gatherer -makes sense that the hunts did not happen daily-nor the protecting. however, women did have to provide food (gathering/tending fields) for Millennia. yea, they had to take care of the kids too. see, here's the part I don't get. only women are on welfare? I like my elk in many ways. steaks, jerky, sausage...get to work

2. She is getting future security for retirement. And child raising. 3. I was referring to women receiving things on a personal level. He makes the logical jump between the personal and group. Which if women have a subconscious that feeds them emotions, it would not differentiate the personal and the group. However I don't think I agree with that fully, it seems really flimsy. I'll concede three to you for now. 1. You are correct for a millenia ago. However in the past few centuries women were the stay at home all the time spouse. Even today there are far more males in big business than women.

In any case, we have statistics that say a majority of women vote a certain way. Combine that with the fact that girl's are very high on a man's priorities list. A guy wants to be attractive to the girl and wants the girl to be attractive. So when the girl is unconcerned with survival, she has a skewed perspective on what constitutes attractiveness, and males attempt to emulate this style. Pretty boys. This explains the statistics, and why males are starting to sway left more and more. Although I fully concede that just because things happen at the same time doesn't mean one caused the other. I'm very mad at myself because I've forgotten the logical definition for that at the moment lol

Consider an experiment you've done 50 times. Each time, B occurs only after A occurs. B ALWAYS occurs immediately after A happens. It is never the case that B happens without A happening first, nor is it the case that B fails to happen proximate to the occurrence of A. It doesn't matter where you do the experiment. The experiment gives the same results in Wyoming as it does in Georgia. It doesn't matter when you do the experiment. The same experiment performed at different times in different locations over a period of 50 years yields the same results.

You can set up the same conditions in side-by-side locations, and in the one where A happens B happens, but where A doesn't happen, B doesn't happen. There's a logical connection between A and B. There is direct evidence that A caused B, and A's influence can be directly traced to the occurrence of B.

A is women getting the vote. B is government expanding and running up debt.

One of the well known fallacies in logic is known as post hoc ergo propter hoc meaning, in English, After this, therefore because of this. No matter how many times B follows A is not logical proof that A is a necessary and sufficient condition for B to occur.

Well, at least you got the Latin right. The last person who (incorrectly) tried to label the research results couldn't even do that!

You'll find (if you bother to check) that the logical fallacy occurs when the sole or primary factor considered in concluding A->B is that A preceded B. So, for example, if all women got the vote at the same time, and deficits began to rise, it would be a logical fallacy (in the absence of other evidence) to believe that A->B. Note, it may be true, but the evidence is lacking.

In that instance, it's entirely possible that some OTHER factor influenced the result. For example, if women had all gotten the vote in 1938, the debts that accrued over the next 7 years MIGHT be the result of female voting patterns -OR- they might be the results of some other factor… like WWII. Post hoc - one event (usually), no other factors. Not applicable here.

It is NOT a logical error to conclude causality when other evidence exists. You might mix hydrogen and oxygen together, toss in a match and get a flash, noise and water. The match being lit occurred BEFORE the gases ignited. It is an improper application of post hoc to conclude that because A occurred before B, A did NOT cause B. In science, the proofs are similar to anywhere else. You don't generally rely upon ONE experiment to determine a general rule. For example, when the OPERA scientists announced "faster than light neutrinos", the rest of the scientific world called for verification testing. When they conducted further tests, they found the OPERA folks were in error.

Conversely, the Michelson-Morly experiments determined that the speed of light in a vacuum was a constant. Independent tests proved them correct.

Fortunately, for determining the impact of the female vote, we have 49 separate tests conducted in a variety of places over an extended period of time - all with the same result.

WRT the female vote in America, over a period of 50 years, as women got the vote, governments controlled by those votes began to run debts. Two adjacent states: Female vote in one, the debt rises, no femme vote in the other, no increase in debt. 49 times in a row. It was even considered that states that granted women the vote might somehow have undergone a societal state-wide change that made them more amenable to debt, and which also brought on the approval of the female vote. In other words, some other factor both drove up debt AND made the state amenable to granting the female vote (which would be a cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical error).

We know that's not true because at the passage of the 19th Amendment, roughly half the remaining states still OPPOSED the female vote. So whether a state was inclined to grant women the vote or not, once they got the vote, deficits began to balloon. The hypothetical outside factor driving both the vote and the debts did not exist.

But I welcome any other explanation that explains: 1) Deficits rising ONLY in states where women got the vote 2) Deficits rising ONLY AFTER women got the vote. 3) Applicability to states REGARDLESS of whether the state was in favor of women getting the vote or not. 4) Explains all the deficits over a period of 50 years (which would be a case akin to WWII lasting 50 years, in concert with women being accorded the vote). 5) Why the phenomenon occurred in all 48 states and at the Federal level.

I doubt any other explanation will suffice - unless you want to invoke space aliens and mind control. Then you have to ask yourself whether Occam's Razor applies.

Evidence trumps logic. It doesn't matter what logic and theory says, if you can witness it in real life. You can draw out all the logic and theory saying that it is impossible for a man to catch a ball, and it can be perfectly coherent, but the moment you see a man catch a ball you know that it isn't true.

The fallacy you mention pertains to limited situations that disregard empirical evidence. Obviously just stating that "every time women start voting the state grows, ergo women voting causes the state to grow" falls into a fallacy. However, you can measure how women vote, what they vote for, and why they vote for it. At that point the statement makes both logical and empirically sound sense.

Thanks for the post hoc ergo propter hoc definition, I remember that from long ago, but I was using the short hand "correlation does not mean causation."

If this logical fallacy applied to everything the scientific method would mean nothing.

The video wasn't about why the government is growing. It's about the nature of women and men. Obviously there is going to be more than one cause, but the fact that there is more than one cause doesn't eliminate this cause. If you want to dispute this you have to target the argument not the outcome.

"Evidence trumps logic. It doesn't matter what logic and theory says, if you can witness it in real life." You are confused. The evidence of our senses is a necessary precondition to logic. They are not antithetical to each other but are, together, the only way to determine truth.

What I mean is that if the conclusion is true, and the logic says the conclusion is false, then the logic is wrong. You can't deny reality because you don't understand the logic behind it. Don't tell me what I am, I find that very rude. You can feel free to say you think I'm confused, but don't tell me I am. I understand what I'm saying very much so and will gladly admit when I am confused. I don't need you to do it for me.

yea, attractive BS. whatever. people like value for value. show me a successful female I'll show you a handsome male and vice versa and everything in between. some make decisions to preserve what they have, others take risks for the future, still others build on value sets. the arguments laid forward in this video are cynical and antithetical to Objectivism. read the tea leaves rozar. humans are rational beings. They respond to incentives, they strive to reach personal goals, some build . If you are hanging around in the builder category you are not buying this video's premise.

Merlot, a fireplace, and someone wonderful. Didn't think about you at all until I came back to the computer and discover that I'm suddenly at the center of your narrow little world. Looks kinda sad to me.

point for that. it's like getting that damned fly that's so annoying. one stops everything to handle the situation. then stuff proceeds smoothly from there on out no fireplaces needed in the gulch. just banging surf and sea breezes and fresh produce picked today for the beef stew. carminere accompaniment

Proof that hunts did not happen daily? Sometimes the hunt comes up empty. Proof that protecting didn't happen daily? True, a security guard doesn't necessarily stop a burglar every night, but he provides security with his presence every night.

Awwwww, more personal attacks? Sheesh, why not deal with ideas? I get it! Yours are inferior and you need to concentrate on ad hominem garbage. Thanks for another fine example of what is clearly and extremist losing.

you got lots of rope to hang yourself. how is the theme song to MASH and ad hominem anyway? I was referring to your losing points which you obviously precipitated. That tens to happen in here when people get all irrational

I love women! I have refrained from commenting on this subject thus far (even as it has spread over several threads) because I believe it is simply contrary to respect for individualism, the matter is bound to enrage some and education and time are the only solutions. First I think... So what? Men and women are different. No kidding... Men commit three times as much violent crime… What can, or should be done? It would be unfair to deny suffrage based on sex irrespective of individuality. What should we do with the men who voted with the women? the women who voted with the men? It would be discrimination not by merit or right. At least reserving the right to vote for those over the age of 18 is uniform for all. I believe I need not impart the reasoning for this...

This lecture is of necessity, full of generalities. I would not wish to be lumped in with all other men, but it has pointed out how government panders to voters, without consideration for the end game. Men in power were often the panderers... women the recipients... both collaborators. If women are acting in general and follow particular patterns, are not men acting similarly? These generalities do not serve us well. Statistics show how groups perform, but provide little explanation, do not, allow for individuality, explain the exceptions, or get at the root of the problem.

There are biological motivations that differ among the sexes, but much of what we are concerned with in these discussions seem to center around the voting trends and dependence of women. It looks as if they have been rational, thinking and voting their own short term self-interest. Much is no doubt regarding their interest in security for themselves and their children. The government has provided and in so doing created a monster welfare state that offers reduced guilt and incentive for men to abdicate their responsibilities and an alternative path for women once left in the lurch. The state has made it easier to live without men and thus they are deprived of not only male support, but also their perspectives.

Men have equal responsibility in this. Much of this is not just biological drivers, though they can’t be denied; it is also sociological conditioning. Women are fully capable of voting long term and comprehending the impact. Apparently too few are getting proper support and viewpoints from more of the men in their lives. This is not to say that men by virtue of their general voting records are all wise or even real men. Real men would bear equal responsibility for birth control, offspring and provide support for the women they impregnate during their reduced capacity (late term, nursing, and child rearing). Many men have not made their cases well enough to their daughters, or acted as proper role models. Men without the biological burden have taken advantage. Many are convinced they need not worry about their responsibilities, or conscience, for the state will provide... Women without reliable spouses, stuck with the burden make choices necessary to get through the day. What concerns have you for long term liberty if your children are hungry today? In the past the traditional family provided. Men as well as women have abdicated much responsibility to the state. The state has enabled. Where were the real men when the first nanny state proposals were enacted contrary to sound constitutional principles? Why are there so few now? Men have been voting since the beginning, women in this nation since 1920. They did not elect Wilson, or have a say regarding the 16th amendment… no that was all on the men… a prerequisite for the big government progressive welfare state. Haven't we as a society all aided in this predilection among many women voters?

Sex should not be a discriminator. If we are to curtail one's voting rights, it should be based on taxation or something other than sex, race or religion. No representation without taxation! A fair tax… Society must again impress upon men and women, the duty of supporting one another and their children, as long as there are children to support. It must again be part of the public psyche that it is best for all, to be self sufficient, and create stable families. We must teach new generations not to overload, rely upon or even create such a system. It is a trap of our own creation. Most have ignored and shrugged off the foreseeable impact of the efforts of the statists for decades. Voting rights will not be rolled back… a pipedream bound to be seen as chauvinism… :( We will all learn the lessons, women and men...

The video wasn't about why the government is growing. It's about the nature of women and men. Obviously there is going to be more than one cause, but the fact that there is more than one cause doesn't eliminate this cause. If you want to dispute this you have to target the argument not the outcome

But the argument was an emotionally based find-someone-to-blame diatribe of the worst kind. One in which a kernel of truth concerning behavioral characteristics of members of a group (women) is blown all out of proportion to arrive at a predetermined conclusion viz. woman are the cause of runaway government spending. This is the same self-serving crappy nonsense used by Hitler to blame the Jews for Europe's woes and now by BO in blaming rich white racists for the woes of people of color. It sucks no matter who propounds it.

So are you agreeing with me that your earlier statement regarding all of the things he didn't mention is inconsequential to the actual argument he is having? Because I'm not going to continue discussing this with you if you dodge my points.

I didn't find the argument emotionally based, he points out how women have been voting and then comes out with a logical argument to hypothesis the reason why.

If you're admitting that the behavioral characteristics of women has a "kernal" of truth, then he is not blowing it out of proportion. He is following this "kernal" to it's logical conclusion. At NO POINT does he state this is the only reason NOR does he even proclaim the significance of what his theory means. You are the one who jumped to that conclusion.

No. Not in any way do we agree. Women have a reputation for answering a question with a question and not putting up the seat when they are done. This behavior does not make them responsible for runaway government spending. I stand by my previous posts. Let's discontinue.

I liked that link a lot, though I don't know if he categorized libertarians correctly. Then again maybe my definition of them is wrong. Either way it was an excellent point that many people I see here in the gulch make. They want to build these principles but don't want to follow them as soon as they are used against them. If you want the government to allow prayer in school, don't throw a bitch fit when you start seeing the schools praying to Allah.

Women vote for big government? √ Women are biologically predisposed to vote for welfare? √ Women are "marrying" the government? √ Women have reduced the incentive for men to be responsible? √ Women are primed to get stuff for free? √ Women are the primary reason for the excessive growth of government? √ When you give women the vote, women will vote for free stuff? √ Men don't want government to become big? √ Women are risk-averse compared to men? √

He doesn't seem to disagree with ANYTHING I've said with the possible exception that women not voting is the resolution of the problem of women voting.

BambiB, I really really want to give you a point for the cool checkmark things, but you keep back handing us. Listen. Please. Could you, for argument's sake, say, "most women" when you make these accusations, or state facts, or whatever you want to call it? WE women in the gulch (as far as a I know) do NOT fall under this umbrella of retarded voters, non thinkers, wants free stuff, married to the gov..... we despise all of those ideas as much as you do. And try talking about a different topic sometimes....or we may just stop listening and start thinking you're a scratched up 45 that nobody bothers to go bump the needle. I'M BUMPING THE NEEDLE!

No it does not make me 63! I didn't say "Victrola"! If you mean the majority of women then say "majority" before you say "women"...WHEN ever you say "women". 8 extra key strokes..I'm sure you can handle extra strokes. No?

I'm not a woman, but I have one solution. Get rid of the government. Democracy is the closest thing we have to control over what the government does, and it is obviously flawed. For the constitution and a Republic to stand, the people must be ever vigilante. They are not and never will be, especially with the time it takes to become educated these days. You can not become a specialist in a field and also spend a large portion of your time watching the government. Maybe that's wrong, maybe you can, but no one wants to and no one will.

I think we're headed towards government collapse anyway. The dollar is so debased now, it should be worthless. Just not enough people shouting about the emperor's lack of clothing… yet. Indications are that China is maneuvering to make the Yuan the world reserve currency. Whether that actually happens or not is anyone's guess - but they certainly have the tools they need to kill the dollar.

So just imagine for an instant that the dollar is worthless. What happens to government? What happens to all the social welfare programs women have demanded? What happens to the "child support police"? What happens to all the welfare queens? Will single mothers suddenly rediscover the value of men? Will men care?

I think the times are due to become quite chaotic. We have almost as many firearms in private hands in this country as there are people. The military, all state, local and federal police combined are a tiny force compared to the number of gun owners. I don't know if a totalitarian government could stand (probably not), but if the government's biggest tool - money - becomes worthless, who will work for government?

Since government has generally turned out to be destructive to men and beneficial to women (in the short term), it seems possible that men will rebel, and the women's only hope of keeping government would be to… what? Go to war with men? Try to control men? Enslave men (more directly)?

Whatever. Let’s talk about what men wanted. Men wanted Mitt Romney. You kept harping how women in droves voted for Obama, but you failed to examine the choice. Mitt Romney? Really? No matter how much I dislike the current president’s philosophies, Mitt Romney would have been much worse. I think your real problem is all those ‘stupid’ women did you a favor, and eating humble-pie ain’t your thing.

No, we can't. The United States is as dead as the Roman Republic. Maybe if we'd have defeated Obamacare... maybe. But, there's never been an example in history of a vigorous,healthy republic ever having been restored after it traveled this far down its road of decline.

It will be replaced. Either by a single-payer system, if we really are as foregone as we seem... or it will be replaced by another national health insurance scheme, this time favored by republicans (translation: a different set of cronies will benefit) that will do nothing to restore individual liberty, and *must* remain in effect (for the sake of those in power of both factions) in order to retain the precedent that the government has the authority to intrude on every aspect of the individual's life, and that we live at sufferance of government, not the other way 'round.

There are really only two factors that give me any hope. 1) While the Demoncrats are a monolithic block made up of pure stupidity, and the Republicans are generally a lot dumber than one might hope, still, the Republicans are NOT a monolith. The Tea Party/Constitutionalist/Goldwater/Ron Paul Republicans DO have the right idea and they are making an effort. Will Americans be smart enough to kick the others out? I don't know. Probably not. I have little hope that the men will wake up and almost no hope at all that women will figure things out. But younger folks seem to be starting to "get it". Of course, seeing the price of education rise 1200% in a three decades, getting roped into Obamacare and tied down to pay for senior care is a sobering experience, I'm sure. Perhaps they'll lead the charge in #2. 2) The government is enormously outgunned. With 300 million firearms in private hands, it wouldn't be that difficult to violently overthrow the government. It IS what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they enshrined the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in the Second Amendment. They had just finished defeating the world's major superpower in a war that started when Britain attempted to control their arms. Those shots fired on Lexington Green? The Brits were on their way to confiscate rifles, powder, cannon and shot.

I cannot think of a time in history when a citizenry was so heavily armed. (Can you?) Killing the enslavers is rather extreme - but I could see it happening. At some point people may be desperate enough - and once word of their success spreads, it's all over for the ruling class.

Which was Romney’s stated goal: repeal and replace.If...if the Republicans get it through their heads, and not make the same mistake again, there is hope. At least with Obama, his lack of administration skills has damaged his own plan causing a confidence crisis with the most ardent of supporters. They are not out selling Obamacare with authority. They have dropped the ball. I'll hold my breathe, for now...while I pack my bags. I will leave if this country doesn’t turn back next presidential election. I agree with you, Obamacare is pretty much added slope to the decline.

The only reason Obama might be a better choice is because when he effs everything up, there's no way to blame it on anyone else. I'm hopeful that the 2014 elections will see a massive change in the makeup of Congress and Obama will be done. Who knows? Maybe even impeached.

As for Romney, he was a butt-ugly choice. But someone thought he would appeal to women.

My personal preference was Ron Paul and I consider the fact that he wasn't elected in 2008 and 2012 proof that the vast majority of voters - male and female - are morons.

Thank-you. I like it when my errors are pointed out reasonably. I didn’t ping you because of your spelling. I pinged you because you behave like a troll. It’s annoying to try and have a conversation with someone who thinks it is okay to smack you down because of your sex. It’s not debate; it’s abuse.

I’m implying that your username should have been Loki. Don’t think I don’t see through this whole divide-and-rule game you got going on for yourself here.You are having great sport at the expense of the women on this board. I don’t think you believe half the things you are writing. Let’s just call it -- a woman’s intuition. (I’m still sensing military.) So far, as others have pointed out, you rely heavily on fallacies. Isn’t comparing equal pay for equal work to a woman’s ability to land a bomber sort of a mask man fallacy? There. That’s my contribution. Keep writing; I’m reading.

No Mimi, I'd say the majority of what I've said is what I earnestly and truly believe to be the truth - with all the most salient facts backed up by links to relevant research.

But since we're digging into motives and such, I see you as someone who would deny a truth you find disturbing, even if it were tattooed on your forehead, repeated by every person you know, played on every radio station and drilled (literally, drilled) into your head. Your "counter arguments" such as they are, are unsupported. They are in fact, if not merely your opinion, then at least what you want to believe - regardless of their clear conflict with what is known to be factual.

You are a denier of logic. And emotionally-driven person with scant grasp of the topics possessing a paucity of reasoning ability.

For you "women's intuition" IS "fact", regardless of truth.

As for the "fallacies", I don't suppose you are capable of following that discussion. Suffice to say, you got it wrong. Again.

Re: "Romantic Love" A component of romantic love is the admiration of one person of another. A hero admiring a heroine. It is not the product of hormones, nor is sex the only component, although not a component to be disregarded. A rational man is ruled by the product of his brain and not his glands, which means that appearance is only a part the of attraction and not necessarily the major one. Do not forget that the very foundation of man's definition qua man is volition. To think or not to think is as much a part of choosing a life's companion as it is in every other decision. I recommend Rand's 'The Romantic Manifesto, which applies not only to relationships, but also to creativity.

Your a bigger person than I am. I couldn’t watch anymore after he mentioned he just back from aroma therapy. The early nomad and gathering cultures were very egalitarian societies. Because of climate and the need to be near a water source, we began to divide up the workload. adding hunting and permanent communities. Women couldn’t take a noisy infant with them as they crept after their prey, and men couldn’t nurse, so men took on the role of hunter as a result.

If I had to guess here...the workload of building the homes, growing the crops, raising the kids was far greater than heading out for the hunt so gifts were necessary to bribe women to do their part in an an obviously unfair division of labor. *wink*

Lol I had a hard time paying attention when he got to the yoga part I'll admit that. But we all agree that values change over time, and before American government started growing out of control, females were more often than not stay at home parents. And while I know you and Khalling and LS are not like my perception of the average woman, I find it hard to believe that you don't see that there are many women, especially on the low end of the wealth spectrum, who buy many many material things that are meant to make them look more attractive. Especially back in the 1920's onwards. I see many movies and have read plenty of books that reinforce this view.

Because the ideas of selling products by exploiting vanity and beauty was a fairly a new concept and blew away the competition with marketing success. The Singer Corporation was the first company to use an attractive woman as a demonstrator, ironically, Singer was one of the worst sweatshops to work for. If it weren’t for Singer, Britain may have never formed a Communist party in the early 1900’s.

Yeah, we've come a long way since Lucy. Look around; "early nomad and gathering cultures" didn't build the modern world so many are alive to enjoy. Before "women.... crept after their prey" humans were adding meat to their diet by scavenging from predators. There's no evidence that early female humans acted as predators.

Almost not worth commenting about. This guy needs a lesson in romantic love. The first consideration between two people is their love and admiration for one another. The rest is all a matter of mutual decisions such as, children, one or two incomes, career, lifestyles, etc. That doesn't preclude the ups and downs that the roller coaster of life brings you, but it has been my experience that a good marriage/partnership makes you twice as strong, not twice as weak. Marilynn and I have been together 60 years, married for 58, so this person is full of frijoles.

Have to agree with Bambi on this, although I'm no expert on "love." I do know when you are first falling in love with some one, if you don't rationally consider who they are and who you are, you are taking a massive gamble on what will happen when that first love feeling ends.

I couldn't finish this, because right out of the gate he is dead wrong. One of the reasons we could survive is that women could continue in their gathering, organizing, child rearing role right up until they were very temporarily occupied with labor and birth. There is much data to indicate that primitive women didn't have children one after the other and that nursing, for at least a couple of years, suppressed their fertility. It is only with the support of the technological world that women can pop out babies every year and survive. Most of the advertising that sells us all on the need to collect stuff we don't need is done by men. Advertisers have capitalized on the desire to attractive in both men and women and convinced them that the way to go is to buy whatever they are selling. I'm not against this. In a free country people should be free to waste their money if they want. Women may buy a lot of small things, but it may be mainly the men who buy the big ticket items items like cars, boats, motorcycles. I think I'm starting to ramble here, but I hope you see my point.

People had more births in the past. The average family was larger in part to fill labor roles required by an agrarian society. Also, the natal death rate was higher. Bach sired 21 children of which 13 survived. Large families were quite common. Today in most of the world, family sizes are larger than the "idealistic" nuclear family. Many births were to servants or slaves or some other kind of indentured worker. Because of overpopulation, China has a one-child-per-family policy except in some real remote regions where two are allowed. Most Western societies have engaged in huge government propaganda programs to limit family growth. These have been successful but run the risk of a stagnant society.

Real tribal societies that are left follow the boom/bust paradigm: If they have a lot of food they tend towards higher birth rates. Less food, lower birth rates. In South America where a lot of tribes have been uprooted and relocated, birth rates suffer and in a few generations, the tribes die out.

I am constantly amazed that people can have so little understanding. For example, Steven's comments about women being incapacitated during pregnancy seem short sighted. Towards late term that may be true but I have witnessed tribal societies and women are just as productive as men. It's a sure bet that historically, it was that way too. Take agriculture for example: Women tending children would have more time to observe their environment and because they did most of the gathering while men did most of the hunting, would be more aware of changing seasons and areas that constantly grew the most berries or edible plants. Over time, they would have figured out about seeds and cultivation. Men would not necessarily have thought that way because the role of the man was to hunt and find game. That means observational time was limited to those things that increased the product of the hunt.

As far as women not being adventurous I posit the following: The legends of Pandora and Eve should give us a clue. Men were content with the established order but women were adventurous enough to challenge the accepted thinking and try something new.

But men and women do think differently about life goals. Where a man may want to explore the river or trek across the desert to find something new, it has always seemed to me that women want the man to invest the same kind of energy into her. If one looks to romantic novels as a guide to the inner workings of the female mind, this theme constantly plays out. Women may not be the solo intrepid explorers that men are because socially men and women have developed differently based on hunting and gathering which require different psychologies.

Even in societies where the Gods have a lot of female attributes, work seems to be divided pretty much similarly. This kind of distribution of labor cannot be because of male oppression but something deeper. Remember that in any kind of frontier endeavor, women must run the farm or the homestead wile the men are away hunting. The division of labor does not mean either sex is better or worse or frivolous or not. It's just a difference. Work has to be done to survive and both mist contribute to be successful.

"but I have witnessed tribal societies and women are just as productive as men."

Yes, it was shocking to see those societies waiting for us when we got to the moon, and we should ever be grateful for their advances in medicine and engineering and agriculture that allowed millions to enjoy the prosperous lifestyle we enjoy.

So you are suggesting what exactly? We have defined work roles more stringently than any tribal society although both have restrictions of labor and activities. Because of PC many exclusive men's activities have been opened to women. Sadly the opposite is not true.

Division of labor is simply that. In the military, a lot of women are promoted to fill quotas. Many reach pretty high rank yet few show any real leadership quality. On the other side, many men who get promoted to field grade or higher have even less leadership ability. They do have one thing in common and that is the ability to middle-manage which is a pretty dismal state of affairs for everyone. But it's nice to know that both men and women can be completely incompetent when it comes to leadership and leadership is a division of labor.

Actually, there's significant evidence that allowing women into the military simply resulted in a "dumbing down" of military standards. (See "Weak Link, The Feminization of the American Military" by Brian Mitchell.) The trend is to eliminate those activities that women cannot do, to maintain a separate, lower standard for women, to promote women faster for lower-quality work, even to pass women on who fail standards. Karen Hultgreen was a prime example. The first female Navy Fighter Pilot, her instructors repeatedly gave her failing marks. Hultgreen, true to type, declared that she was being discriminated against on the basis of Gender and complained through her congressional representative. IIRC, the assignment of the next CINCPAC was held up pending a "satisfactory" resolution of her complaint.

Given no choice, her instructors passed her on the course while noting she was a danger in the air.

On her first Carrier landing attempt, Hultgreen over controlled her $40 million dollar F-14 Tomcat causing a flameout in one of the engines. Her GIB was able to punch out in time, but Hultgreen went to the bottom.

The only good thing about Karen Hultgreen is she didn't manage to kill anyone else… and such is more typical in the military than most people realize.

Equal pay for equal work? In a pig's eye. Women are "playing" at something they don't even understand.

Great example BambiB! With a "self given" call sign of "Revlon", Kara was an accident waiting to happen. It was image over substance all the way. After she crashed behind the USS Babe-raham Lincoln they had to wait 6 weeks because there was no money for a "salvage" operation (until after Oct 1st). all most of my carrier Naval aviator/NFO friends "lost at sea" stayed there, with honor. But Not Revlon. this" image" thing went all the way to POTUS, because when recovered the jet they located the rest of her remains ( only Nomex and bones still attached to the ejection seat) at the bottom of 1700' of Pacific blue water, Clinton had her interned in Arlington (in a 35mm film canister), which is usually reserved for military awarded with some level of high honor/decoration. She induced the problem with that Tomcat. But I digress. Kara being in a fighter in the first place was all a knee jerk ration by busy body politicians like Patsy Schroeder (D-CO) following Tailhook 1991. Patsy is Kip Chalmers with pandora's box. Fortunately her time has run out.

During operations in Panama, female truck drivers broke down in tears and refused to move their truck further forward when they learned there might be snipers ahead. They were not court-martialed for cowardice or refusing orders, because, golly-gee-whiz, it wouldn't be right to hold women to the same standards as a man.

The Redondo Run, once a hallmark of achievement at the Academy, was eliminated after men continued to succeed - but women failed. Can't have women crying over their failures now, can we?

And the "obstacle course"? Dumbed down. Too many women couldn't get through it. And we're not talking about HARD stuff, even. You know the rope swing over the mud pit? Apparently women's inferior spatial reasoning skills and utter lack of anything resembling upper body strength made that too tough for them. Too many wound up in the mud, and that meant they got laughed at, and holy smokes! You can't laugh at a woman just because she's incompetent!

Most telling was a study done by the Navy regarding, not the ability of women to do various shipboard damage control tasks, but to gauge the effectiveness of Navy training. As I recall, the sample size was pretty large - nearly 4000 people with over 1000 females. The idea was to test all the trainees on the tasks to establish a baseline ability, then run them through the training course and test them again to see how much the training had improved them. Some of the tasks tested were moving a litter between decks, moving P250 pumps, handling fire hoses and torquing engine bolts. Altogether there were 10-12 tasks that were rated. The P250s are a submergible pump that is used when a ship is holed. They're used to pump water out of the compartment until the leak can be sealed, so it's a critical function - arguably one of the MOST critical.

I don't recall the exact numbers for the guys. It was something like 87% were able to move the pumps before training and 93% or 97% were able to move the pumps after training… an improvement of 6-9%. But for the women, prior to training 0% could perform the task. After training? 0%. That's right, an improvement of 0% to a total "mission accomplished" rate of 0% across the female board. Not one woman succeeded.

As I recall, all of this happened sometime in the mid-1990s and it was apparently a bit of a shock to the brass. At the time they were planning a program called "Navy 2000", which would put women in 50% of the shipboard billets. One analyst wrote that in the prior couple decades they'd had two ships holed (the Stark was one, IIRC) that would have gone to the bottom with a 50% female crew. Navy 2000 never happened. Even the politically-correct brass wasn't ready at that point to sacrifice ships and lives for the lie that women could do the job.

But that doesn't stop women from signing up for the Navy welfare system.

The Feminazis always argue that there are plenty of jobs they can do in the Navy on land. I don't know all that much about rotation schedules, but am under the impression that a typical swabbie is out to sea for a year at a time. That's a year away from family, kids, and anything else they might be involved with ashore. The way they get their "quality time" is by rotating into shore billets. But the problem is, they have to have a billet to rotate into. If you've got some split tail who is locked up in a shore billet because she isn't capable of doing what needs to be done aboard ship, that's one less billet the men who ARE doing the job can use to reconnect. This has understandably impacted Navy recruiting, retention and morale - and not in a good way.

On top of that, add the fact that women are promoted faster due the the political correctness aspects despite a weaker background, less experience, fewer capabilities AND they don't take the same risks as the men (but they get the same pay) -- it's a first class case of why women are bad for the military.

But the laughter doesn't stop there!

Did you catch the story of the plan to replace all the heads on all the ships in the Navy? Yep. Seems seeing urinals was just too "icky" for the women, so the top brass (who have long been more political than military) decided to replace them all with "Stainless Sanitary Space Systems". Just looked up the cost for the initial installments. Ladies, you'll be happy to know the Navy spent (at least) $187,000 for each of the 3000 heads they renovated in the first pass so women wouldn't have to look at urinals. That's a little over half a billion dollars. Yes, billion… with a "b". That was just the heads on aircraft carriers. Haven't followed up to find out if the Navy has wasted more millions desexing their other ships.

Oh wait. Maybe that IS a better idea. Just how old are you? If you're 100+. I'd consider for that. After all, it's hard to imagine you'd do more damage than the women's choice of dictator will over the next 2+ years.

The problem could be that there aren't many 'soccer moms' that hang out in here, so your posts are taken in the wrong light. I would think that 99.9% of the ladies in here would never even see themselves as the butt of your research, and be happy to assume that we are not talking about them, but backing them up. They should be just as upset with the numbers, and not with you.

I don't know who singed you but Iwill say this kind of thinking is dangerous. Individuals have rights including voting-groups do not. So discussing removing of rights from a particular group seems irrational to me

Bambi’s just blowing smoke up our arses. Divide and rule.I actually went around giving him points because I thought someone was dinging him on my behalf, (not to say he didn’t deserve it.) I can fight my own battles.

I really don’t get the ’soccer mom reference. It didn’t bother me. What did strike me as odd is the whole post came across like this: " We are not those kind of women; we are the kind of women you like!” Why cater to this guy? He has has already stated he knows and means exactly what he is saying, At least value he knows himself better than any of us would. The internet is not a place to truly understand people. For instance, you know I’ve been telling shoe jokes for months, but the truth is I just like the personification for kicks. In my ‘real-life’ I own two heels for special occasion and some sneaks and boots.I am very low-maintaince. I, however, will continue to tell shoe jokes. It pleases me. Lol. Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving, kh. RL is calling this week.

Oh I posted a solution above before I read this but I'll elaborate more here. If you don't give women the right to vote you are just as bad as telling a man he can't smoke weed. You are essentially controlling another human being without their consent, and without them having any kind of negotiation or representation.

Whether you are right or wrong about women voting, it's a another case for anarchy.

And yet, by allowing women to vote, you give to that group the power to force you to surrender your earnings for their benefit.

Wait. Isn't that what you're talking about? Slavery?

So neither solution is "perfect", but at some point we have to recognize that the female vote has destroyed (yeah, I think it's too late - so the past tense is applicable) America. Certainly men are on the hook to pay for the female version of "marrying the government".

Wait we had a disconnect, I only proposed one solution, anarchy. We have to remove voting because it is faulty. You have the principle: we must allow people to vote if they're male. Women are fully capable of the act of voting, you just hate the outcome of it, because of your values.

I guess I'm at fault for thinking that the purpose of voting is to select the best alternatives for society. Prior to women voting, this generally worked, though it was certainly far from perfect. I don't know of a system that has worked better (again, prior to the women's vote), but if there is one, we should consider adopting it.

When women got the vote, it was no longer about doing what was best for society as a whole, but transferring resources to women, which completely undermines the society-based purpose of voting in the first place.

The greater aspect of voting is that prior to women voting, people were free to spend their collective resources as they deemed appropriate. It might be the best choice for society, or it might be a colossal blunder. But the expenditures were drawn from the society and spent as society decided best.

Only with the advent of the female vote has the franchise been used to commit the resources of FUTURE generations! It is one thing to steal money from the people who can vote you out of office. It is something else entirely to steal from generations unborn!!

If the principle is that voting should benefit society, rejecting the female vote is a principle-based decision. Women have shown themselves uniformly incapable of responsible (for the benefit of society) voting for more than 140 years. OTOH, if one thinks that voting should always favor men (or women) then your argument that it's a VALUES-weighted choice has merit.

Naturally, through this lens, one must examine the call for anarchy. If it benefits one group over another, is it principles-based or values-based? (I learn towards the former, as anarchy says nothing about what group should benefit more - but it does leave each person to their own capabilities, and that intrinsically means men have a substantial advantage.)

What say you to that?

(By the way, this is the sort of thoughtful discussion I'd hoped to find in the Gulch. Thank you for your efforts.)

I don't think there's much we can do at this point other than to recognize it, try to understand it, and allow it to fail, as it must eventually. It's certainly not going to get much main stream airing, and I don't even think it'll get much recognition from the femme side. At least AR made Galt a male, so maybe there's a little glimmer of hope.

What's the 'Old Man's' question, "i've never understood why women are so pissed off. They control at least 1/2 the money in the country and all the p*##y.' Where does that leave not only men, but rational thinkers?

Zenphamy: I think you're right. I think it's probably unfixable. We have to go through failure of the entire system first.

So if you know what's going to happen (women are going to keep adding to the debt) and you know that's unsustainable (at some point, the dollar will collapse, the government will mostly collapse, the welfare queens will go hungry, their children will starve), what do you do to capitalize on the situation? Because the point of "Atlas Shrugged" was that as society drives the productive from their ranks, society will suffer.

At this point, the women have brought it upon all of us, but more specifically, they've brought it on themselves. I expect a winnowing of the chaff.

BambiB, for me, the damage done and that yet to come encompasses so much more than just an economic collapse and humans starving. We're 4 to 5, maybe 6 generations into such a radical, near nationwide, (probably global) blind and hysterical attempt to alter and engineer humankind's perceptions of reality, that rational objective thinking and analysis of the overall impact on our species is near impossible for such a huge majority of the population. Ignoring the evolutionary development of our species, with certain genetic traits that so strongly impact perceptive analysis and reactions to the events of life that through 1million years or more has led to our survival and to who and what we are today, in favor of bogus explanations, studies, and junk science to justify the drastic shift of societal power of the late 19th and early 20th centuries has been nothing short of insanity and suicidal for society. How many realize that more than 90% of all the species that have ever lived on Earth are extinct, and that most of them had come and gone long before our little branch even began to form?

When AR began forming and writing of the objectivist philosophy, we were only 2 to 3 generations down the road of feminization of the controls and principle purposes of society at all levels. Can you picture the reception that an AR of today just introducing her philosophy would be subjected to? I'm not even sure of how AR might have responded to the anti-feminization terminology and examples you and I and many others choose to utilize in our arguments, unless she had entered the fray at similar times and circumstances as we. But never the less, her predictions of the collateral and most societally damaging consequences of what she recognized as irrational thinking, analysis, and action have for the most part come to face us in glaring fashion.

As for capitalizing on the situation that we acknowledge to be actual, with some fuzzy delineations still to be determined such as collapse timing, I think it boils down to how much effort we're willing to put into gaining a true understanding of the total impact to our lives. Financially, I think we all grasp that wealth comes from receiving more in value for our contributions of value to the market than it costs to support our life, but more than just accumulating, we must in this situation transform that wealth into things that we can hold and control in such a way that women (divorce, child support, overspending, taxation, confiscation) can't take it from us such as physical gold & silver, even when against the law. In much the same vein, realize that many if not most prohibition laws are feminist in origin and only serve to establish a black market which though higher risk, we should be willing to explore and participate in if we can do so safely and ethically within our personal moral value system. Laws and rules that are inconsistent with the ethics and morals of a rational minded producer can and should be dealt with as with any civil disobedience issue, ie. slavery, alcohol prohibition, mixed marriage, etc.

But to capitalize personally, we should do as the two female psychologist that I referenced in a previous post, suggested. Women's suffrage leading to the feminist movement has convinced young women of all the fallacies that we recognize, but instinctually, at a sub-conscious level in personal relationships, acting on those teachings make them very unhappy. In the experience of the referenced psychologists in treating young to middle aged women, when women learned to accept being true to their biology or on occasion found themselves in a relationship with a man that dealt with them as, he a male and her as a female, they became happy and content. In their (psychologist) words, if you're a man in any type of relationship with such a woman, listen to them, just don't do or try to be what they seem to want you to do.

Our main difficulty in addressing this situation is that I don't think, regardless of the ads from Chili and Argentina, a Galt's Gulch is available except in our minds. We can learn to apply the Objectivist philosophy and Libertarian politics to ourselves and our lives for our benefits. We may have to learn to accept and defend selfishness from the viewpoint of self-interest vs. self-centeredness. Being very different than those around us and gaining internal strength from that, based on real knowledge formed and investigated within a rational mind, particularly when verified within true, peer reviewed science studies and literature, can form a strong individualist that can then proceed to innovation and actual progress. I fear that most men in today's world simply fear, or are too tired, or too lazy to go against what the group think is. Feminization is not just a female condition.

>> if you're a man in any type of relationship with such a woman, listen to them, just don't do or try to be what they seem to want you to do.

In general, women come to men with complaints and only want the man to listen to the complaints - and do nothing. This is insane from the male perspective. The reason for talking about a problem is to seek possible solutions to ACT to resolve the issue. But women just want to talk - it's what they've done for millennia. For them, someone listening to their drivel, er, concerns, reassures them that they are not alone. In short, women aren't happy unless they have some problem to complain about (that no one tries to solve) and men aren't happy with unsolved problems polluting the air. All of which points up another major difference between men and women:

Men are problem solvers. Women? Not so much.

>> Feminization is not just a female condition.

Actually, the technical term as applied to men is not "feminization". It's "pussification". But you can see in the response here why most men will not go against the group think. Look at the irrational responses to documented fact. Look at the ad hominem attacks. Do you think women would be less hostile (to the truth) if these discussion were taking place face-to-face?

That's why the author in the book, "Men on Strike" says men are dropping out. They don't need a six-figure income if they're not going to support a family. Video games are a lot more fun than talking to a harpy. Marriage? Don't bother. Just find someone who hates you and give them half your stuff!

One point I don't agree with you on is that the genetic traits have already been substantially altered. Men are still men. They're just not in the same role they've been in for the past 100,000 years. But you needn't worry that this is a permanent change in culture. Most of the world treats women more in line with their traditional roles. So you can think of the current state as the "woman bubble". A brief period of time during which women appeared to be ascendant before crashing back to the prior status quo. In short, it cannot last. Ironically, it may be one of the few areas where the radical Muslims are right.